Terrible Mother Who Took Her Kids To Syria Now Wants To Leave Islamic State

David is a lifelong dissident and intellectual rebel. He despises political correctness, which replaces real, needy victims with narcissistic leftists out for a free meal. Though still a young man, he has watched society descend into its present morass with great sadness, combined with a determination to help make things better. He tweets when there's something worth tweeting here.

“They want to come home,” she said. “My daughter made the mistake of a lifetime. Today she is a parent alone in a foreign and vicious land looking after a widowed 14-year-old and four other young children.”

Tara Nettleton is an Australian currently living in the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Last year, she took her five children, via Malaysia, to Syria. Her husband, the now possibly dead Khaled Sharrouf, was already there as an Islamic State fighter.

Nettleton’s family members, her Sydney-based mother Karen in particular, have been seeking media outlets of late, desperately calling for the Australian government to allow Tara and the children to return. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, sensibly, is insisting that Tara Nettleton will be charged (and almost certainly convicted) for both supporting terrorism and taking part in an illegal foreign conflict.

Wanting to avoid this, the family has engaged the services of a prominent Sydney barrister and is resorting to treating Tara as if she were a victim.

This is the life Tara Nettleton has knowingly and passionately brought her children to.

This self-pitying narrative is based on nothing but a pack of lies. Tara Nettleton’s husband had been convicted and jailedyears ago for plotting terrorist attacks intended to kill scores in Australia. To argue that she made a “mistake” in taking herself and the five children to Syria after her husband had shown strong desires to kill people in Australia is nothing but a pathetic insult to any half-conscious human being aware of the news cycle.

Importantly, Nettleton was aware of the deplorable situation already existing in Syria, where the forces of Bashar al-Assad and often secular rebels had been engaged in bloody battles for three years.

Sadly, defending Tara Nettleton’s shocking and purely criminal abuse of her vulnerable children represents yet another attempt to invoke femininity and motherhood so a woman avoids any responsibility for her actions. This is a theme I have already explored in the case of mothers killing their children, notably after the breakdown of a marriage.

Truly heinous acts towards children, including exposing them to the risk of death and inevitable psychological horror within a mass-murdering terrorist caliphate, are still perceived by many in society as only the domain of fathers, not mothers.

How is Tara’s use and endangerment of her children not child abuse?

Tara Nettleton loved posting about her glorious life with fellow jihadi wives. Then it got hard and her gender became a most useful tool to try and stoke sympathy.

Thanks to a conscious, flagrantly premeditated and ideological decision, Tara Nettleton’s children are irrevocably scarred. The sons of hers involved in the handling of severed human heads will be adversely impacted until their final breaths, if they are lucky enough to live beyond their childhoods.

More than aware of the brand of Islam she and her husband were following, Nettleton would have additionally realized that her daughters would be married off to much older men while still minors. In the case of one, a 14-year-old, she was betrothed to her husband’s best friend, who was killed in the same attack that may or may not have killed Sharrouf.

Only the smallest glimpses of the children’s lives have been captured on social media, so we have no way of knowing what other innumerable mental and psychiatric tortures they have been exposed to.

And this is where Tara Nettleton’s mother Karen and the rest of her family enter the picture. Of course, Ms. Nettleton wants the safe return of her daughter and five grandchildren. But she veers into pure nonsense when she equates the children’s plight with Tara’s:

I don’t want my daughter and grandchildren to be collateral damage in this shameful and tragic war.

If Tara Nettleton dies, she is not “collateral damage.” She has been an active supporter of Islamic State. Her belief in this self-proclaimed caliphate was so strong that she abandoned the comparatively secure anchoring of her children in Australia and took them to a land plagued by civil war, where even the privileged children of Syrian government elites and other functionaries have died in the resulting carnage.

It is also poignant to remember that we would not engage in any such discourse about adult victimhood if a father had taken his children to a bloodied land like Syria to purposefully live in a terrorist state.

The constant, unequivocal denial of female agency

You know you’ve done horrendous things when your mother has to post your childhood pictures in the media to gain sympathy.

Thankfully, the desperate PR campaign of Tara’s family is failing to cast her in a better light. No major, remotely reputable public figures have come out in support of her, nor should they. Although one would hope that the children are removed to safety, Tara’s choices have ensured that this will probably not be the case.

So what can we glean from this situation?

Firstly, the compulsive drive to defend the indefensible when it comes to selfish and criminal female behavior is yet to die. Like Karla Faye Tucker, the opportunist murderer executed in Texas, gender is used and abused to try and spare women from either culpability or the fate they bring upon themselves. What is troubling is that families and other supporters know that this strategy, however far removed from reality it is, usually has a good chance of succeeding.

Secondly, it is possible to make out some rough contours of where this defense is rejected by modern society. As a grouping, we must define and utilize these boundaries more effectively. And then we must redraw them according to what should be their proper limits.

Whether it’s the perennially excused female sexual abuse of teenage minors and other underage children, female-perpetrated homicide, or mothers taking their kids to a terrorist hotspot and then supporting terrorism within it, the pussy passes afforded to blatantly criminal women must end.

Submit an article for ROK and get paid

Starting in March, we will pay you in Litecoin cryptocurrency for any article of yours that we publish. If you have something to say to your fellow man, now is a great time to do it. Click here to learn all the details.

You know, when it comes to the whole ISIS thing I have mixed feelings. I despise the current Western world and society so much, that it’s hard not to empathize with a group of people who want to eradicate that world and rebuild it in their own image. None of this changes the fact that they’re a load of barbarian cunts who need to be wiped out for the benefit of the civilized world.

I agree, my hatred for what feminism and democracy has done to America really makes me empathize with them. After all we have not allowed for a truly Islamic state to exist since maybe the Ottomans. They are quite ruthless and blood thirsty however, so I don’t like them, I just don’t have a visceral hate for them. What also I think is happening is that we just got out of wars in Iraq and Syria, and they really want us back in, so the media constantly whips up the bad shit that ISIS does to get us more involved.

Yep.
Weaponized cuntocratic democracy to the left and Islamist knuckledragging to the right.
Burn it all down and let the wars be person on person wars. They say the last war will be fought with rocks. Good!

Personally, I rather think that Islam is a fairly feminized establishment in many ways. When you look at it, you have a bunch of overly-emotional, perpetually-offended, violent manchildren utterly incapable of handling their base impulses thus requiring that all women be covered at all times lest they tempt the man to misbehave (because it’s never his fault). The slightest suggestion that they have been mocked or made fun of puts them in a blinding rage and they bring violence down on anyone who disagrees with them while blindly following everything that their self-appointed leaders say is correct.

Would your feelings still be mixed if ISIS proved to be at least in part a product of American or Israeli psychological operations – that is, if CIA, NSA or Mossad or whoever had used the Muslim Brotherhood to construct yet another convenient enemy and then recruited Islamic dupes from around the world to serve as pop-up targets? What if jihadism is to some extent another Orwellian tentacle of the bloated beast that has consumed America-as-we-knew-it?

it doesn’t necessarily have to be that ‘conspiratorial’ in order to be useful to the West. All wahabbism as far as I’m aware seems to have emanated from Saudi Arabia thereabouts, and whatever the truth movesment like these can develop when there’s enough jihadi fury. Even without direct intervention all the western intelligence forces and military have to do is neglect to intervene as they would do if they really felt under threat. Leaving aside anything that might have happened behind the scenes – effectively they’ve done nothing, except visibly make things worse.

The present wahhabist threat started in the US with Sayyid Qutb, who supposedly began the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (parent of PLO, Al Qaeda and Isis, etc) in response to his revulsion at the open sexuality of mid-western American farm girls during his graduate studies there in the `40’s or `50’s. Or something like that.

I think I read an article or two about him. Also heard that it modelled itself on western (marxist) revolutionary strategems (if not the ideology). There are even some conspiracy theories saying that it was invented in the 18th century by a British spy although that could be anti-western propaganda

actually I’d add that its interesting to see evidence of how western culture may itself be responsible for antagonising conservative peoples. As far as I’m aware there’s never been a western institution oriented around pursuing peace that came up with the thought: “maybe it would be a good idea if we stopped behaving like complete sluts and set an example?”

But in this case, the agent who took the call was already once-bitten by accusations of racism when he investigated a Chinese national for industrial espionage in an earlier case. So the agent filed Woods’ report in the round file. It’s usually incompetence and cowardice, rather than conspiracy, that aids and abets these villains.

The James Woods! I think I remember another story of an ignored / suppressed 9/11 report. I don’t doubt there’s scope for incompetence, but surveillance and intelligence is so far-reaching these days (much more so now than pre-9/11 admittedly) its difficult to believe that the intelligence services don’t respond selectively to the forward knowledge they obtain, and that when they do that they don’t do so according to their understanding of political and geo-political priorities. It isn’t far from that from the kind of calculation that would be involved in say saying – ok, ISIS are a threat with regard to factor X but with regard to factor Y (say the russian port in Syria for instance) they could actually be quite useful. Cue a little bit of behind the scene agonising, with Agent Landy (bourne supremacy remember) saying “that’s not what I signed up for” while assistant director Noah whathisname is thinking, we need to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture, will ultimately be about a definition of what the US (etc) national interest consists in. Depending on who it is who is considering that ‘bigger picture’ those interrests could easily be interpreted in such a way as to justify non-action with regard to forward intelligence that you and I and any ordinary mortal would consider absolutely unconscionable. But if the higher purpose is ‘do not give an inch to russia’, or must de-stabilise Iran, or Syria etc, then do you really think they would hesitate to hesitate if you understand my meaning

I hear what you’re saying, and it makes sense on paper, but what I’m saying is that one thing you can always count on government to deliver is: incompetence. Government fucks up everything it touches. That’s the real reason why the founding fathers tried so hard to limit government, not so much to prevent tyranny, but to minimize incompetence. The Bourne movies were movies. In real life the government would simply lose Bourne’s files and have no fucking clue whatsoever who he is right before they accidentally kill him in a botched-up drone strike.

I don’t disagree really. I’m sure incompetence is a part of it, but we can’t assume that it is the whole of the thing. The best theoretical support for your position I can think of is the risk society idea, which predicts that attempts to make things better will actually lead to making things a whole lot worse (unless you do some pretty solid risk management). The problem is I just don’t really buy the idea that – where ISIS / jihadis are concerned for example – they have really tried to make things better. Much of the money that is to be made in the world, and as importantly the power to be had, requires chaos and turmoil. All of the things that have gone wrong in the middle east etc, have created profit, not for society but for the system, the banks, and if not the banks then the corporations etc. That doesn’t mean its all planned, or orchestrated from up on high, but it does mean that there may be an investment in things not going quite as right as could be

The free market does everything better than government. The way to make things better is to enable individual men (and any women who can hack it) to be successful entrepreneurs and freely associate amongst themselves (i.e., form companies) as they see fit, and they will create prosperity. We need some limited government to run the courts, prisons, army, and a few other things… but America became an economic superpower because of the oil tycoons, not the bureaucrats. With the advent of digital currency, the question is, do we even need banks any more? Ross Ulbricht didn’t, and he made millions…

Can’t disagree with that, to the extent of course the market is free:
cartel like behaviour supported by government has made it harder to set
up businesses to some extent.

Its difficult to imagine a world
without banks – notwithstanding your example I’m not sure how one could
have a modern economy without banking of some sort. The problem I
think is the type of banking we have which fuels a debt
economy, arguably creating rather than managing cycles of boom and
bust, such as we have suffered in the last decade. So I’d say
clip the wings of the banksters and then work out the banking system, so
that it is geared to genuinely constructive entrepreneurship rather
than predatory or speculative behaviour.

You’re bang on when you talk about cartel behaviour supported by government. This is where we get into crony capitalism. It’s what Mussolini based his fascist economy on and Hitler modelled his socialist economy on Mussolini’s. The problem lies with government “picking winners” with its support. Like I said, government is incompetent and it fucks up everything it touches, so it does a terrible job at picking winners in business, i.e., it fucks that up too. Example: Following a recession, government decides one company is “too big to fail” and so it supports it. Meanwhile the smaller competitors of that “too big to fail” company, of course, fail because they get no support because they’re “not big enough”. But those smaller companies might have been successful if they had been allowed the opportunity to take over the market share of the “too big to fail” company, if the “too big to fail” company had been allowed to, well, fail. Clearly this concept applies to banks. So when Goldman Sachs was “too big to fail” and got a $10 billion government “bailout”, but Lehman Brothers was “not big enough” and got sweet dick all (and failed), you see a perfect real world example. The real tragedy lies in the fact that the “not big enough” company may have been the better company, maybe their cost controls were better, maybe their employees were more talented, maybe they just had better luck, who knows, but the economy will never know because the government interfered and destroyed the freedom in the marketplace. It’s like giving only one of the horses in a race steroids. Sure, that horse will win, but how do you know it was the best horse? You don’t. And now your winner has no real competition so it gets lazy, grows bitch tits, and becomes emotionally unstable. Great job Mr. Government.

I do accept that governments are incompetent, and that’s a quite powerful justification for a minimalist state rather than unwieldy and interventionist one. Obviously there will remain a lot of controversy over why the recession happened. I’m no expert on these issues but you don’t have to search very hard for alternative reasons why goldman sachs survived while lehmans was sacrificed. Given that Paulson was an ex-Goldman Sachs chief, just as Carney at the BoE is an ex-Goldmans man, it does rather raise the issue of how the government should be defined. Doing an internet search for “why did Lehmans fail” will lead to pages of ‘conspiracy theory’ about the role Goldman Sachs played in the whole thing. Did Lehman’s have to go because of most of the debt was european (rather than America) or was it because of bad blood between Paulson and the Lehman CEO (Fulds), or more worryingly was it because Goldman Sachs saw Lehmans as a commerical rival and didn’t want to pay back its debts… I’m not saying any of those things were the reason, or other than ‘conspiracy theories’ but there’s nothing improbable about any of them, and if as it seems ex goldman sachs executives (or those of any other banks) are effectively positioned in lead positions within governments then is it even meaningful to talk of a separation of powers between ‘government’ and ‘the bankers’. At the very least the banks are a very important part, probably the most important part of a complex of non-elected bodies within a military-industrial-banking complex (why does the banking bit get left out?) that seems to be able to wag the dog so to speak rather than the other way round – while of course always insisting that the dogs master remains the voting public.

Thanks for the compliment. Your analysis of the details of the Goldman Sachs vs. Lehman Brothers bailout story contains very plausible arguments, but what I’m saying is that none of those factors could have influenced the decision to bail out Goldman Sachs and not Lehman Brothers if bailouts were prohibited altogether, which is what I’m proposing. Sure these guys fight dirty with each other, that’s what happens out in the real world, guys fight dirty. My argument is… let ’em fight and sort it out… keep the government out of it because the government is too incompetent to be involved in the contest. Maybe Goldman Sachs was the better bank, but we’ll never know for sure now, will we? And now that the bailout helped them slay their competition, they’re going to get lazy, grow bitch tits, and become emotionally unstable. Banks are private companies like any others, ergo they are an “industry”, with one important exception… central banks. The Federal Reserve, because it is owned by the government, is another prime example of government incompetence fucking everything up. Quantitative easing is exactly like medieval kings minting massive amounts of cash to rob the currency of its value.

Inflation is deceitful and ineffective. It swindles savers, fleeces lenders, pumps taxes higher and triggers malinvestment. It doesn’t reduce unemployment; it whittles away your wage. Nor does inflation promote exports, but it does make international trade more frightening.

thanks for the response. I agree with much of that. Certainly bailouts were a big part of the problem – the system does seem to be set up so that risky or irresponsible behaviour on the part of the banks – e.g. irresponsible mortgage lending etc becomes a taxpayer responsibility rather than the responsibility of those who are benefiting when the going is good. I can’t help feel that Lehmans was a sacrificial exception to the rule, so yes banks need to be allowed to fail if necessary – the argument that they are essential to stability doesn’t appear convincing. The question though is whether the current system would allow that to happen. I’m still not convinced that there is any real distance between government and the big banks / corporations: if – to use Matt Tabbi’s famous analogy – the tentacles of a goldman sacks or whomever are wrapped around government and financial policy in the way they appear to have been back in 2007/8 was there ever any possibility of bailouts not happening. Re. the Federal Reserve, I’m a little unclear what you’re saying here, as formally I think there is no central bank to ‘own’ and the individual banks that comprise the system are a (probably deliberately) complex web of the private and the public. The Fed’s relation to the government for that reason is always going to be highly complex – the question is whether any such ‘incompetence’ as you mention is down to a poor apprehension of events or a need to meet conflicting needs, where arguably the most important needs in the equasions are those of some of the banks involved. Quantative Easing is a dangerous policy – I don’t really know enough to have very strong opinions on the implications – but its worth noting that simply printing money / controlling the money supply is pretty much what the Fed was set up to do – and as such is likely to be the deserving focus of criticism for those who have a healthy suspicion that the fiat money system that we have might be the root of the problem rather than the solution

The banks can engage in risky behaviour if the playing field is level, i.e., if they all get equal bailouts or none get bailouts (my preference). Competition will sort out the idiots naturally. The Federal Reserve “system” is the central banking “system” of the U.S.A., and its board of governors are appointed by the President. So, like the Bank of Canada is the central bank of Canada owned by the Canadian government, the Federal Reserve is a central bank effectively, Americans are just playing with words here. Setting the prime interest rate is one way a central bank plays with the economy, “printing” currency is another (though now the “printing” is done digitally). To beat that dead horse a bit more, government fucks up everything it touches, so when it engages in these central banking actions, it fucks up. You’ve hit on it with fiat currency. Fiat currency with no gold or anything else to back it up is a huge problem. However, note that Bitcoin has no central banking authority, and that’s how Ross Ulbricht made millions without his financial transactions being traced by any bank. So that’s where my argument is leading. Do we need banks, central or otherwise any more? I’m probably like Kramer in Seinfeld when he didn’t want his mail any more… they’re probably coming for me right now.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nKlzQo3Wqo

“the Federal Reserve is a central bank effectively, Americans are just playing with words here”

Its a great scene from a great episode. I’m not sure an interview with the federal reserve chief would be quite the same though. Its not really a cuddly institution. Moreover I think its more than “just playing with words”. I’m not an American (I’m from UK) so its not really my place to comment on american domestic affairs, but insofar as we’re talking about an international system that affects the west (and beyond) more generally I don’t think its unreasonable to do so. Its not just about the reality of the situation. There are some big issues of confidence involved here. The Fed was founded in the shadows, has an arguably dire history, and is seen by most americans (according to a survey I read) and much of the world as part of a corrupt system. I was reading on wikipedia when responding to your comment that Milton Friedman was of the opinion that it would be best to ‘demolish it’. Well that’s for you guys to decide, but it affects everyone. There are some books around the issue as perhaps you are aware. It doesn’t do to believe everything you read, but equally it may be worth asking some hard-reaching questions about whether the fed (or other central banks) are fit for purpose, serving their respective peoples etc rather than simply propping up a system that doesn’t work except for the few. Its not necessarily a zero sum game, even perhaps for the banksters

I’m a Canadian so I’m not involved in the decision either. And I agree that the Fed is even worse than your everyday central bank. Milton Friedman was a tiger and one of my heroes. My point is, one of the best ways to kill a beast is to starve it. If we all start doing business with each other in Bitcoins, the Fed chief won’t be able to cancel enough golf games to interrogate all us Kramers. 😉

agree with that, especially with respect to starving the beast. Bit too early to judge the prospects of Bitcoins. Maybe it was designed by the Fed as a replacement for the petro-dollar for all I know! not alleging that – just a thought

“Government fucks up everything it touches.” Case in point, the Mustang Ranch. the Mustang Ranch was a legal Nevada brothel. It was seized by the IRS for failure to pay taxes. The IRS ran the business while trying to sell the property. Within a year they went bankrupt and lost every cent of value they had seized. How incompetent do you have to be to lose money running a whore house?

I can’t imagine why this threat isn’t found by satellites and bombed by a country with billions of dollars invested in military hardware. Fucking Sallie Mae could find them if they had a student loan with their current infrastructure.

I think the game plan is for obama to wash his hands of the middle east and let the next chump deal with it. Till then the hatred and animosity will rise to the boiling point and ISIS will be tracked down via gps beacons by all the American weapons and tanks they’ve aquired and they will be vaporized. Just think of it as the calm before the storm. They just want public opinion to get to the boiling point where they get moral support to wipe them off the face of the earth.

Here’s my thing about this. There’s dozens of affirmative decisions she had to make to get to an ISIS controlled war zone. It’s not like you can have a bad night of drinking and wake up in the middle of Syria with your children in tow.

And then make the affirmative decision to dress them in fatigues, carry guns, and let them play with the severed heads.

But what she will say is that “my husband forced me to do it” or ” I was psychological abused by him”.

You were so abused that you boarded a plane for Turkey? Then illegally crossed the border into Syria and made your way via a transport to ISIS because you sure as fuck didn’t walk there with your children in tow? How does that happen?

The only abused individuals are the innocent children who, yet again, suffer at the hands of selfish, ignorant, vapid woman with a hamster the size of a fucking HumVee with vagina tingles so strong from her Alpha bad boy that she will do the utmost stupid shit for good dicking!

I suspect that Child Services or whatever has no jurisdiction, which is a tragedy. The whole lot of them are fucked.
.
Maybe one of the kids will kill an American and become the next Omar Khadr (seriously, google this shithead. It is unbelievable how much the SJWs in Canada love this murderer).

Its a shame to see comments sympathetic to ISIS. how much more obvious does it have to be that ISIS is serving the interests of the West. Even if the arab spring wasn’t financed and supported by the West with a view to producing more rather than less islamic extremism the actions of western governments and NGOs created the basis for what is happening now. What’s more sympathising even casually with these nutters is something that will probably be used in the near future as a way to tar all forms of “non-progressive”, non-feminist sentiments as ‘extremist’. ISIS in the East is about the East, but in the West its increasingly going to be about controlling and regulating the domestic populations, and not just muslims, but any one who could be seen as dissenting from ‘consensus values’. Things might be better in the US? but even this week the UK has been announcing how it wants to tackle evidence of extremism – defined as deviation from consensus values. One minister when asked for an example of what this might mean in practice gave the example of how a child in school who was thought to be homophobic might require intervention. In other words countering islamic terrorism in other countries will mean policing thought and expression within the domestic population. Don’t fall into the trap

The great celestial bitch force known as the ‘great whore’ is behind ISIS so as to capture the resurgence of Islam and initiate goddess worship into its cathedral. Whether the ISIS women get martyred away or survive, you can bet the long term plan is to incorporate cunt worship symbolism into the new Arab state church, kind of like a papacy of Islam it will be.

I don’t like to go out on a limb with regard to things I can’t prove definitively, but I regard what has happened so far as beyond suspicious. For the first year or so of ISIS’ appearance I just couldn’t work out what the hell was going on. Nothing made any sense, until of course you factor in the kind of deception that goes on with high-stakes geo-politics. As for the name, again I’ll reserve judgement, but playing clever games with the name of the highest deity in the alternative spirituality goddess pantheon is just the kind of thing the intelligence services would play. Its actually the sheer over the top pantomime villainy of the ISIS freaks which makes me so suspicious. Just like the Nazis they are incredibly useful as a villain against which to define the values that one ought to believe in. Values such as ‘tolerance’ (guess what tolerance training is going to be coming to a venue near to all of us very soon), and of course women’s rights, and human rights (which increasingly means gay rights rather than freedom from abuse for political prisoners). Basically ISIS represent the opposite of everything the West wants to promote as the new normal for the new international internationalist community. ISIS in other words represents everything that we are supposed to eject and expunge from our hearts. Way too evil and way too convenient for it to be pure accident.

Many seem to also sense that we are on the brink of a long dark age. The foundation of a goddess cathedral seems to be being laid now. The wrecking ball demolition of old cathedrals and our current civilization sits with reams of plans already on paper for the bitch cathedrals with ISIS as the least sublime of its undertones.

I’m sure there were already plans drawn for new structures at the WTC site before it was demo’d in ’01. After the attacks when there was talk of what to do with the site, I was saying back then that a giant obelisk should be built at the site. Five times taller than the Washington Monument. The tallest structure in the world of SOLID granite and limestone. Any crazy plane crashing into it would go ‘splat’. The biggest tombstone on earth or a memorial gravesite to some . . or . . being an obelisk it would kickstart a masculine resurgence. No one listened in ’01. No, they build more office space with cubicles for more fertile young women to waste away. I wouldn’t even go into a building there built on such a massive gravesite. Ever seen Poltergeist?

I don’t see why it has to be a long dark age. I’d say don’t buy into ‘their astrology’. Nobody knows shit about the age of aquarius or whatever. The world moves more quickly, the world or at least our world is spinning every quicker on its axis. Whether that means the singularity is near remains to be seen, but what it should mean is that if we work through the current movement rather than simply against it we should be able to some extent to direct it. The bermuda dark triad pubic triangle or if you prefer goddess cathedral has superficial roots. Its trying to reach back to a pagan past and it is likely to fail in that endeavour. They can call the wahhabi mercenaries whatever they like but ISIS is dead, and their little game isn’t that clever if its easily seen – assuming of course that it is the game we think it is. There’s certainly a great deal afoot and it would appear to be a long time in the planning, but that doesn’t necessarily mean all the conspiracy theories are true, just that certain forces are trying to consolidate their grip and to advance their agenda. The more that agenda is forced to the surface the less power they will have. In fact in many ways rather than the start of a new age this may in fact represent the end of an old one. Their ‘progress’ framed the right way could be seen as the climactic extinction burst of a very old and soon to be extinct set of behaviours. I think it is the age of Aquarius that is dying rather than being born. Don’t give it the power it craves. It is ultimately an illusion. A magician’s trick, and however devious it is, it isn’t even ultimately that good a trick. There is always deeper magic. Isn’t that from the lion the witch and the wardrobe?

I don’t empathize with this horrible mothercunter or the people she and her late husband joined to fight with. We here fight the same battles, but don’t resort to lopping off heads and blowing up babies in the name of some mythical sky god. I don’t care how bad things get here in the West. I’m not giving those fuckers an ounce of sympathy.

So, now she wants to pull the ejection handle and return to civilized life. The problem is she and her kids are drug addicts, ADDICTED TO BLOOD, the most powerful drug on the planet. Once they’ve witnessed and tasted the blood orgy, there’s no turning back. They’re like vampires — the blood lust never dies in them. They’re fucked in the head. And no civilized country should desire their kind to enter their borders.

Who in their right mind can expect this sorry excuse of a mother and her mind-fucked kids to reenter westernized society without looking for a reason to sever a head, or blow up a street festival, or martyr themselves and sacrifice others — just like goood ‘od daddy did back in the day?

This wondercunt made her bed with dogs. She and her kids are flea infested Isalamifucks. Now she and her spawn can endure the fallout of that horrible decision for the rest of their shortened days.

“Who in their right mind can expect this sorry excuse of a mother and her mind-fucked kids to reenter westernized society without looking for a reason to sever a head, or blow up a street festival, or martyr themselves and sacrifice others ”

I hear what you’re saying… taste for blood and all. But supposing, for example that the photograph of that boy was taken in the USA and we were at civil war: the socialists vs. the patriots (the patriots being the ones for the Constitution) and the severed head that boy was dangling from his hand was the head of a social justice warrior. How badly would you feel now? Maybe not so bad? I know I would feel a level of vindication.

So what the fuck are you saying? That connection of non extant hypothetical dots stretches further than silly putty on a hot day.

In a similar vein, let’s suppose ol’ Max Robespierre resurrects from the dead, forms a new Committee for Public Safety and Social Justice and launches a guillotine-driven reign of terror against red-pill men, channeling Antoine Louis to add another blade to simultaneously decapitate the genitalia, turning us into dead-no-head-red-pill-freds.

Then SJW’s would feel a level of vindication…. blah, blah, blah. I’m going mad just trying to follow all that gobbledygook. Are you really projecting your feeling of vindication on me through such an absurd scenario? I think I”m going mad just addressing this nonsense.

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer for Pres in 2016! He’s the only one that can take on Hillary and win. Brilliant!

A very well written and unbiased article. The author surely has done his homework. It is quite apparent, that Tara has knowingly plunged her children into a bloody, and dangerous world. I feel, that she and her children should be removed from Syria, for the sake of those children alone, and no one else.
However on removal, Tara should be arrested, and charged for knowingly participating in terrorism, and knowingly immersing her children in a world of terrorism and abuse. Her daughter was married off at fourteen. It’s blatant child abuse. She cannot, argue, that it was her husband’s decision and she could do nothing about it, since she knew what kind of a man her husband was, and still consciously decided to take her children along with her to a world where his word would be the final word.
She should be imprisoned, preferably for life time, for physical and psychological child abuse, and more importantly for being a partner in terrorism to her husband.

I thought that, my question is: how is she able to leave the caliphate even if she was allowed to return?
It’s not like they’d pay for her taxi to the airport.
Is she in hiding?
It all seems a bit suspicious to me…

Very true, Khalid Sharouf was a thug criminal who was a Union stand over man and muscle for hire for various outlaw bikie gangs. He would have served considerable time before his escape to Syria and Islamist persuits. I think it is surprising that these men are more desirable than average Joe on the streets to most Western girls but most Weatern men are screaming equality.

Must not laugh. Must put on offended self-righteous SJW mask. Must condemn all who use the DC words. Must, must . . .oh no . . . BWAHAHAHABWAHAHAHA! Now must make caffeine defence and an apology tour itinerary.

Listen folks, if a radical Muslims want to kill you it doesn’t mean radical Muslims are bad. It is simply a religion of peace. It just means they want to kill you. That’s it. What is so hard to understand about this?

If a Christian bakery doesn’t want to bake a gay wedding cake, it doesn’t mean they want to respect their own religious beliefs, it just means Christianity is a religion of hate that wants the gays dead. Nothing personal.

The mental obstacle course with ring of fire you have to jump through to be a SJW is quite brutal. Ain’t it?

Yeh, let’s ignore the fact that Jews came to where Arabs lived, fought them, kicked them out of their land and claimed it as their own. What are the Arabs people supposed to do, make them a cake? I don’t agree with Hamas, but Jews started the terrorism, they shouldn’t be surprised to recieve it back.

Wow… your reflexes are a bit slow… that joke went right over your head. You’re missing the point that Kerry is asking Netanyahu to agree to the death of 50% of the Jewish population. And anyway, the Arabs don’t want a state of Palestine, they want the destruction of Israel. There is a subtle but important difference between those two goals. The Arabs made a war-camp from which to attack Israel, and the Israelis came to where the Arabs lived in their war-camp, fought them, kicked them out of their war-camp land and claimed it as their own in order to occupy the land and prevent more war-camps from being raised. Context matters.

“Yeh, let’s ignore the fact that Jews came to where Arabs lived,” –
Arabs belong to S. Arabia. Actually, most of the proclaimed palestinians are actually descendants of Arab immigrants who came to Israel in the 1900’s looking for a job, because at that time Jews started to flourish the land.

“kicked them out of their land and claimed it as their own” –
nobody
kicked them out. They fled on their own. When Arab forces entered
Israel, they said the locals to leave so they will clean the country
(kill the Jews) for them.

“What are the Arabs people supposed to do” –
After Britain had retrieved their forces, Arabs attacked Jews. Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, S. Arabia etc. – sent their reinforcements. Jews prevailed and thus prevented another holocaust. That the whole story.

We both know why. Even today the UN constantly condemns Israel while totally ignoring massacres committed by ISIS, Boko Haram etc. What do you expect of them? Most of the world consists of dictatorships and the other is run by degraded nations such as Sweden, Belgium, France etc. I can name you maybe 4-5 democratic countries with healthy regimes.

Of course, the massive muslim immigration also plays it’s part. Before doing something, you must take into account that 25% of your country are muslims who doesn’t seem to follow your rules. There is no any leader in Europe today who seems to change this status quo. Probably they are bribed by some other “force”.

People blame Jews for controlling the world, but they forget about countries like S.Arabia, Qatat, Emirates, Iran, Iraq etc. that possess huge reservoirs of petroleum. And we all know that American economics depends on oil prices. It’s also easily explains why EU is being flooded by muslim immigrants who don’t have any professional skills except for sucking the welfare tit.

So what do we get?
Degraded nations + corrupted and weak leaders + fast islamization of EU = the fall of the western civilization in Europe.

Uh, the Arabs were Islamic squatters living on the ancient Jewish homeland.
The so-called “Palestinians” are nothing more than Syrians who got left behind after Syria got their ass handed to them after they launched that treacherous attack that resulted in the Six-Day War.
It’s like if the Native Americans reclaimed their ancient homeland, would that give you and I the right to launch rockets into their reclaimed territory?

Funny thing is, there are all kinds of examples of muslims killing infidels (Innocent People) , yet the liberal will defend them as a Tolerant, Most Peaceful Religion, there are no examples where Christians are beheading Homosexuals (or Anyone) , yet because Christians won’t accept Homosexuality as normal, Christians are Slurred as Dangerous, Bigoted, Domestic-Terrorists. I Understand why Liberals Defend Islam, they share the same Ideas: Conform to my way of thinking, or Die.

That shows the power of “Moral Vanity”…liberal fucktards don’t want to call out the Muzzies b/c that might “look bad” for “brown people” (nevermind that, worldwide, Christianity is majority brown), and that attacks the very essence of the self-worth of the liberal SJW: that they are “Good People”–way better than you, in fact, you fucking troglodyte.

Thus, we have, as the twin pillars of SJW ethnomasochism:

1. “You’re a Racist!!! You hate all Muslims!!!”. First, they mean “Bigot” of course, not “Racist” but they’re so wound up about race that they can’t separate it enough to think logically about it–see Ben Affleck’s meltdown on Bill Maher, when Maher was calling out Islamic Terrorism (Maher separately made an excellent point: “The Westboro Baptist Church pickets my shows and it never ends in a gun battle.” [for those unfamiliar, the WBC folks are just awful people.]

2. “BUT WHITE GUYS DO IT TOO!!!!”. The existence of “white” terrorists is somehow supposed to ameliorate the existence of Islamic terrorists. They don’t have the IRA anymore, and so we hear all about the “abortion doctors” being killed, when in fact you can pretty much count those guys on one hand (there’s one guy who may have gotten rubbed out because he got sideways with his bookie and couldn’t cover). And guess what? We prosecute those murderers and lock them up. Nobody is jumping up and down shrieking “GOD IS GREAT!” over them.

As William F. Buckley said: Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

Liberals Can’t function outside what they’ve been told, Like in Ben Afflecks case he had a Meltdown because his Narrative was challenged and when he saw he lost the Debate he still didn’t want to give up the Narrative and he had a Meltdown. As long as everybody does what Liberals say, liberals are Tolerant.

California is a really 50/50 state. I believe one movie star jumped on a plane and flew to Texas to avoid filing for divorce in Cali. I worked with a nurse who had to give hubby the house in order to save her pension. She also had to pay to fly the kid for visitation once a month with the dad.

She’s divorcing him, not the other way around. God help him. The timing is too perfect to be a coincidence. She’s over 40 and her career as a headliner is over. Apparently they’ve been separated for some time. Sounds to me like she kept things on life-support until they hit ten years, then pulled the trigger.

In California if you’ve been married for 10 years, you have to pay alimony for the rest of her life. At a level set to keep her in the lifestyle she got while you were married. So Ben’s going to have to maintain her two-movie-stars income up for life.

Ben, we may not see eye to eye on all things, but you have my deepest sympathies.

If white guys don’t engage in terrorism at the same rate, it’s because they don’t need to, they have systemic ways of getting their way. Including but not limited to having the world’s most powerful militaries impose their will. George Bush invaded Iraq because he believed God wanted him to, and evangelical wannabe crusaders cheered him on, enabling and supporting the venture.

Terrorism is mainly engaged in by those who are aggrieved and lack ways of obtaining redress through whatever power establishment is in place. Funny that you should mention the IRA, they are a case in point. They stopped engaging in terrorism the moment they were granted a viable nonviolent option.

I’m a bit circumspect about anyone “needing” to engage in terrorism. The IRA was primarily a nationalist movement that could always have been negotiated with, i.e. if the UK left Northern Ireland, it was over. Once the IRA figured out that killing people was only going to make things worse for them, and started merely being a nuisance by destroying property, they got what they wanted.

Contrast that with with a Totalitarian Religious Death Cult that “needs” to burn down embassies over cartoons or fly civilian airliners into office towers…..

Actually that describes christians pretty well. I have been around christianity all of my life, and the common theme is, agree 100% with me and my sect or you are automatically wrong and going to hell. Christians even hate each other. Christians, muslims and liberals are all the same.

I said “over sectarian differences”. The Rwandan genocide was over tribal differences. You’re being incredibly disingenuous here. Hutus did not kill Tutsis because they practised their religion differently, they killed them because they were from a different tribe, and I expect you know that. Take your race-baiting bullshit elsewhere SJW.

the various churches in rwanda had been playing the tribes against each other since colonisation. while it’s true that most rwandans overall are catholic, most of the protestants were hutu. i’m not being disingenuous, your distinction is hair-splitting. christians of various sects, mostly catholic, slaughtered other christians of various sects, including other catholics but with a higher proportion of protestants, with widespread encouragement from churches of various sects, sparked by tribal tensions that had been actively exacerbated and engineered by state and religious authorities for decades, using religious identity as a core tool. it wasn’t purely sectarian, sure, but to say that it was purely a tribal thing is patently false.
finally, calling someone an sjw race troll because they disagree with you is beneath anyone who professes red-pill/neo-masculine principles. in this case, it’s also laughably incorrect.

OK Edward, your explanation is enlightening and I will walk back my trolling of you since you want to engage in an actual discussion. My apologies. You obviously know more about the Rwandan situation than I do, but your invoking it distracts from the point I’m trying to make about Islamists killing each other over purely sectarian differences. And while I retract my insult to you, I still say you’re being disingenuous. You’re talking about Africa, a place where Christianity has been “exported” to. In the traditionally Christian nations, i.e., the West, brutal violence over sectarian differences in Christianity is ancient history, and you know I meant the West when I said “us Christians”, or if you didn’t, now you do. And the stark contrast here is, of course, that in the traditionally Islamic nations, i.e. Saudi Arabia, i.e. the desert, they’re still cutting each other’s heads off. So I don’t really see how you disagree with the essence of my argument, but I do now see how you were not race-baiting, but were, however, hair-splitting over what constitutes brutal sectarian violence. Comparing the Rwandan genocide to Islamic sectarian violence is absurd.

I’d say the tribal differences are probably the biggest part, with religion being a convenient pretext. The Tutsis are tall, noble looking and fairly smart, whereas the Hutu are squat and not very bright.

In addition to your excellent post on Muslim violence, I’d like to point out that Muslims were hacking away at each other over religious differences before Mohammed’s body had rigor mortis.

The same could be said for most sunni-shia fights, past and present, but I suppose such things as nuance and deeper understanding are reserved for when you need to find a pretext for why it doesn’t count when Christians are doing it.

No, the same could not be said for Sunni-Shia fights you useful idiot. The Sunni-Shia schism happened immediately after Mohammed’s death and it was a squabble over who would succeed him as caliph, and it was disingenuously justified by bullshit theological differences, not pre-existing tribal differences (which were present among Hutus and Tutsis in the Rwandan genocide). Christianity had a great schism too, that’s why we have a Catholic Church and an Eastern Orthodox Church. And while these two groups did some fighting in the middle ages (sometimes begun during Crusades against Islam where they allied with each other first), that was the middle ages, and the magnitude of the violence pales in comparison to the butchery that has taken place inside Islam and continues to take place in the present day. Islam is bad for non-Muslims. Islam is bad for Muslims. Islam… is bad.

Congrats for missing the point. How the sunni-shia schism began is irrelevant, since no contemporary sunni-shia fight is about that issue to begin with. If that were the case, the Shia-dominated Iraqi government would have abolished itself and handed over the country to a Shia caliph with the correct lineage.

How it began is incredibly relevant, because schisms continue to occur within Islam today and they continue to result in bloodshed and beheadings. And if you haven’t noticed, there is a caliphate in Iraq right now… it’s called ISIS. Read a news headline or two now and then before you make your feeble arguments.

Except for the minor detail that you used to keep doing exactly that for centuries, right until you were forced to stop by people who had watched your behavior for long enough to become convinced that secularism and freedom of religion might actually be good ideas.

Why, all the people who got the Age of Enlightenment going, and who eventually acquired the critical mass needed to push through its ideals.

You know, the Age of Enlightenment, which was preceded by two centuries of Catholics and Protestants murdering the shit out of each other and devastating much of Europe in the process. It’s hard to imagine a more efficient ad campaign for secularism and freedom of religion than that.

I’m Christian,I Preach the Gospel, If a person wants to debate God, I’ll stand my ground. I Pass along the Word, but I don’t try an force anyone to accept what they don’t want too. You’ll Find Christians Make up a lot of Conservatives.

You may have been around Christianity all your life, but I don’t think you’ve bee paying attention. Christians are told to not hate other Christians, Muslims, Atheists, or even liberals/leftists. We are told to evangelize, that is get you into our religion, but never any hate. I also don’t think I have any idea who gets what in the afterlife. It’s not really up to me. Anyway, here’s someone trying to bring you in.

If you know of any case where liberals actually support Muslims in the killing of infidels, by all means let us know. And no, disagreeing with the notion that all Muslims should be deported from the West does not constitute support for infidel killing.

Where do I talk of Muslim Deportation?
When I entered the 9th Grade a few years after 9/11 my history teacher (a Liberal Female) started teaching Religions of the world, and the last religion she taught the class about was her “favorite religion” and it was the” most peaceful religion” and it was Islam, again, a few years after 9/11 and the Liberal teacher was calling it the Most Peaceful and her Favorite Religion, no doubt the liberal agenda doing damage control and trying to brainwash a classroom of impressionable 9th graders into believing the Muslims who took down the Trade Towers and Islam is a religion of Peace, Also the Liberals wanted to get rid of the Term Radical Islam when Defining Muslim Terrorism , the Liberals didn’t want Terrorism to be associated with Islam,even though the majority of Terrorism coming out of the middle east is Related to Islam.
Liberals may not Directly support Infidel Killing, and I never said Liberals Defend Infidel Killings, but Liberals Because of Liberal PC Culture Don’t want to associate Terrorism from the middle East with Islam, that’s what I meant when I said Liberals Defend Islam.

Have you heard of QAIA? Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. It’s a bunch of fags and carpet munchers who hate the way Israel treat’s Palestinians. There is a certain schadenfreude in watching various clusters of SJWs and their white knights trying to deal with this.

Many of them are still young and resilient (they are even asking to go back home… I mean c’mon, kids aren’t stupid they can make the difference between how comfortable and cozy their lives were before and how shitty they are now). The 14 yo daughter is a lost cause though and will probably be part of the next generation of terrorist on Australian soil if taken in.
I really feel sorry for the kids.

Well, that’s sounds really progressive. If you have a pack of feral dogs, and you suspect rabies, you kill them all. Those kids are infected with Jihad. Best thing is to put them down. Just wait 12-18 months. They’ll all be dead. Problem solved. The kids aren’t going to be helped by ant government.

Many children grew up in a Nazi society and were educated in the Jugend SS… They didn’t become nazi later on though. Same goes for communism. I have History on my side there.
If the children are on the frontline and fighthing, it may be another problem though. They will not necessarily become djihadi, but they will have psychological problems that may be a great cost to society.

ISIS and their international concubines are the perfect remedy to any qualms one may have about asshole game. A not insignificant portion of the female population would rather be with an abuser, addict, felon, pimp or even genocidal maniac than date her boring classmate.

The only thing about asshole game that should make you feel bad is the damage you’re doing to your own humanity.

There is no damage to children from running asshole game on their mother, it’s the only way to ensure you have a place in their lives. In fact it’s highly beneficial for sons to witness asshole game, if they see it growing up it’ll come naturally to them when they try to attract women.

As for girls, they’ll grow up to be attracted to asshole game whether they saw daddy do it or because they were raised by a single mother because daddy failed to maintain frame. Either you’re the asshole in your daughters life or moms new boyfriend will be once you get divorced.

Ah, my bad. Of course I don’t advocate asshole game to this extreme. In fact, as low of an opinion as I have of women, Western women in particular, I do believe that ( for now ) taking your asshole game to this level will actually decrease your pool of women over men who tone it down a little.

That said being a genocidal maniac still trumps being a boring, stable and dependable guy so if women are your only goal joining ISIS is still better than being a nice guy.

Hummm……… I live in Australia & you should listen to the MSM P.O.S. crying, that we should bring back this woman & her children back …. The Government should do something, like sending a plane to pick them up & reissue their Australian passport(which was cancelled by the Australian Government)
We i.e.. the P.O.S in the media want her back & the children ect..ect…

The sad fact is we the west deserve the Muslim scourge. Think of this would it be worse than this see if you can guess the name. Gets mad in the middle of a war zone deserts gets captured, multiple team mates of his are ambushed and killed while searching for said man. We release 6 terrorist for him. At least she had a reason even if it was a stupid one because that guy had zero.

the monk who posts on here occasionally, cui pertinibet said Islam has always been used by God to punish christians when we are in need of repentance throughout history.
Given the godlessness and decadance of europe and U.S., maybe we deserve the relentless scourge of islam making our lives harder.
kind of a strange point of view, makes sense in some ways. I don’t see how an omnipotent being could use an entire mass of people to attack other people but who knows

I think it’s true though. In the the old testament the most western country is punished by the east. Think of the British empire they rose stayed in control but they where the first western country to get beaten by a eastern one since the Romans or the invasion of Spain. Which happened a few years after the pogroms. . Did they go back to there Christian base no they had the beast 666(Crowley) then they get smashed in another war and we saved them. Did they change nope exported rock music directly supported by the beast 666 led Zeppelin , Beatles, Cream. The whole world was copying them while they where on a steady downward trend. Now the Muslims are taking over Brittian, raping their women, and now they are basically the usa’s flunky. But they are so liberal it’s just what I think will happen to the usa next. We are one disaster away from electing a dictator. And get this who saved them who was there iron fisted savior a women Margaret thatcher. We are doomed. Mcarthur was right we had the chance to take over the world but we didn’t we let the Chinese drive us back and and that was our decline right there. In that instant our fate was sealed.

You could be a godless heathen and still be smart enough to block immigration, but apparently atheism and stupid immigration policies go hand-in-hand. I think it’s more like we have lesser power in God’s image to shape the world, and when we make ourselves atheist we will make other stupid decisions (immigration) which destroy ourselves.

Oh and just to make this tale even more deplorable, the 14 yr old grand-daughter who was married off ecstatically told her grand-mother that she might be expecting a bundle of joy in 9 months – so not only will this shithead returning back with her kids, the Australian tax-payers will also be forking out money to take care of her teenage grand-daughter, who got herself pregnant to her jihadi husband – oh and before one thinks she was raped, the 14-year-old was really happy about getting married to the jihadi.

The west is at war with Islam, and it’s time the west started doing what is necessary to protect itself. If women choose to sacrifice their families, that’s their problem at this point. I’m more interested in the people who are trying to protect the western way of life and their families.

This reminds me of “not without my daughter” the story of the stupid American female aka Betty Mahmoody who married a muslim man and (surprise!) was not allowed to come back to the US once he tricked her into willingly going to Iran with their daughter.

While i believe there are 2 sides to every story, i’ve studied islam sufficiently enough to believe that her story is legit, although with the typical embellishments females and hollywood tend to use whenever depicting movies that involve oppression of females by males.

She chose him and his religion. And if she didn’t bother to read up on the rules about her chosen religion before converting and choosing to go to a country where said religion is practiced as law, well tough shit.

Try reading the article you linked. It says right in the first paragraph (and any Muslim you’d ask on the topic would probably agree) that taqiya simply means that it’s permissible for a Muslim to deny being a Muslim if there’s a risk of being subjected to religious persecution.. Faking infideldom. Not lying about Islam to deceive the infidel to advance some sinister agenda, as bigots like you claim it is about.

I didn’t simply link an article, i linked a wikipedia entry listing references. Taqiya means more than just “denying to be a muslim if there’s a risk for religious persecution”…or maybe you skipped over the word “or” beforehand?

“In Shi’a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious lie,[1] OR a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, specially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution”

Perhaps if you had kept reading before your bias for the pseudoreligion kicked in, you might have noticed that.

The wiki article was no more than a reference, here is PROOF from the quran itself:

Surat Ali Imran: “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”

If these children are Australian citizens, the government of their country should be doing absolutely everything it can to bring them home, with or without their criminal mother and father. Minor children are owed that much at least by their countrymen.

bring the children home? Those children are irreversibly scarred and have been dragged into a way of life that has forever branded them. If an 8 year-old holds a man’s severed head at that age, because that’s what his father taught him to do, what do you think he’ll do when he reaches puberty?
How much money is the taxpayer going to shell for hundreds of hours of therapy, psychological counselling, foster home, specialized care and education for these children? Are YOU going to pay for that?
I’m sorry but simply because a person is a child, a minor, doesn’t make them little angelic, innocent snoflakes. Yes they have unfortunately been indoctrinated by their parents, therefore it’s too late to change that.

Irrelevant. They are citizens of the country, which means that the state exists for their benefit. Not the other way around. The foundation of the rule of law is that citizenship comes with a set of inalienable civil rights, that can at most be lost by committing one of a set of finite, enumerated, well-defined crimes. Whether their existence in the country is a net positive for everyone else or some internet warrior thinks they’re really bad people is irrelevant.

Everyone of you regulars here is a member of a despised ideological minority. You would do well to uphold the rule of law, because it’s precisely such dissidents as you who are the first to fall when the rule of law is compromised. Today you advocate the arbitrary revocation of civil rights from ISIS volunteers, tomorrow the feminists will do that to you, all in the name of serving the greater good, and with as much conviction as you had yesterday that the disenfranchised had it coming due to being bad people.

You are totally right, but you forget that beyond the philosophical rationale, there are practical policy directives that sometimes allow for ‘exceptions to the rule’ in very particular cases. The UK has recently stripped an entire family off the British citizenship for similar reasons, in similar circumstances. The well being of the majority overtakes that of the minority, in these cases.
Of course, if we are to continue on these general principles, we’d end up discussing the big bang theory. I guess this matter is a sort of agree to disagree. It is unfortunate and tragic for those children, but damage has been done and their reintegration in the society might be too little and too late.

Then, Britain has no such thing as a constitution or constitutional rights, only parliamentary supremacy. Legally speaking, there’s nothing preventing the Parliament from passing an act to have the entire population of Wessex blinded by having its eyes gouged out with rusty spoons.

When the feminists come for you, they will call it an “exception to the rule” committed for “the well being of the majority”. This isn’t philosophy, this is practical policy, this *is* what happens when you allow arbitrary exceptions to be made according to someone’s subjective idea of when strict adherence to the rules is unreasonable.

You’re comparing apples with oranges here. Those exceptions are applied in VERY VERY VERY strict cases, I doubt that an entire family of terrorist-linked fundamentalists whose children behead people are comparable with feminists or whatever it is that you would think of (feminist agenda, etc). This is the point- that the ‘exceptions’ apply in fundamentally grave situations.
Same as for the EU human rights- the convention allows for infringements against most of those rights (minus life and torture) IF the general good of a population is at stake, for reasons of national security, etc. Deportations, forceful repatriations, breaking off family ties and stripping off citizenship are the order in many EU countries, exactly in such cases, where national interests prevail those of individuals. The media of course does not portray them in fear of racist/nationalist allegations being made against them.
Like I said, we have to agree to disagree. I suspect you are an American. No offense, but you could educate yourself a little before talking about such matters.
And yes, I do know about British constitutionalism. Thanks for the reference :))))

I mean taking pride in hanging out with her jihad girls (the other jihad wives) then suddenly asking if she can come back home after her husband dies is like asking she can come home after she was done playing like she’s some child

Just get make money having your 14 yr old daughter getting shitfaced enough to buy your way out of there.

Top 5 Most Popular Posts

Submit an article for ROK and get paid

For the month of January, we are running a promotion where we will pay you in Litecoin cryptocurrency for any article of yours that we publish. If you have something to say to your fellow man, now is a great time to do it. Click here to learn all the details.

ROK Donation Drive

If you’re getting value from ROK, consider making a donation through the Roosh Booster Club to help us publish better articles and compensate our writers. Your donation is crucial in the face of Silicon Valley’s cockblocking campaign against us. Click here to learn full details.

Flagship ROK Shirt Has Landed

After many months of delay, we have launched Red Kings Shop to provide you with ROK apparel that will Kratomize your testosterone levels, massively increase the size of your penis, and make you the most beloved shitlord in your city. Click here for launch details.